Well, I can say that Kodak makes their own support and it might differ from Ilfords, but I did use a micrometer to measure the films mentioned above. I measured 3 coated film sizes and 1 sheet of raw stock. And I know that the dry coating thickness is not a great contributor to overall thickness.
The only reference I find is this:
"One TRI-X 320 Film (320TXP) is available in 120 and 220 sizes on a 3.9-mil acetate base, the other is available in sheets on a 7-mil ESTAR Thick Base. You can retouch these films on the emulsion or base side."
None of the other Kodak files show data.
So, I sacrificed 4 rolls of film for you guys and here is the result. I did not do any cut sheet.
Efke KB100 5.6 mil or 0.156 mm (as far as I could read the scale as the needle was over the #s.
Kodak TX-120 5.00 mil or 0.148 mm (same, needle covered the metric scale pretty much.)
Ilford HP5-135 6.0 mil
As far as I can find from my private notes, I used 7 mil estar for cut sheet and 5 mil acetate or estar for roll film when I made coatings at EK. All hand coatings were on 7 mil estar regardless of destination. I did B&W and Color coatings. After coating, the thickness goes up by a few hundred microns depending on what was coated.
I also happen to "accidentally" have a 1000' roll of 3" film used in checking out the equipment. It is uncoated and since it was 3" it was destined for the garbage. Since its rescue it has served in some miscellaneous tasks here but i've never coated on it. It measures exactly 5.00 mil.
Let me ask this, does any of this mean anything? The support is chosen for the camera rollers and to fit the film into the cannister or onto the spool, not for a quality of image per-se.
My personal experience with 120 and 135 film is that the difference is more to do with the quality of the machining tolerances of the camera, plus the difference of lens manufacture.
When was working in an industrial lab, we had 14 studios with about 20 photographers shooting mainly product pictures. Towels, sheets, cutlery, china, you get the picture. It was a factory and we were processing 4 rolls of E6 almost every 6 minutes from around 1000hrs to somewhere near 1930hrs 5 days a week.
The 120 cameras were a mixed bunch. We had Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 cameras, Hasselblad and one lone Rollei which every photographer fought to use.
When we walked to the film rack holding 4 rolls of E6 and placed it against the vertical light box, you could immediately tell whether the rolls were from the Japanese or the European cameras. Their respective lenses showed aspects I hadn't considered before.
The Japanese lenses were really snappy, which is a not too bad feature.
The European lenses were lower contrast, but their detail was astonishing. The European lenses were always used to shoot a stack of white towels with a white background. They were the only ones that made it possible to hold the fibres in the towels very well. The Japanese lenses were excellent but they weren't a match to the Hasselblad and Rollei lenses in that department.
We also used 135 film a lot and all of it was Nikon with Nikkor prime lenses only. The Nikkor lenses were almost the same as the Mamiya lenses, slightly snappy.
As a consequence of that I firmly believe that the way the lenses have been manufactured and coated, probably has more to do with how a film looks than the actual film itself.
I think the machining tolerances of a Hasselblad camera, the way the film holder holds the film flat, plus the accuracy of the focusing of the lens to the film plane. Ensure that your negative will be more accurately focused and therefore making your negative one with superior tonality.
Much like a slightly out of focus print compared to a correctly focused print, will outshine the poorly focused one.
delta is such a fine grained film the grain can be difficult to see, especially if you are using a fine grain developer.
Might seem like the obvious, but have you focussed your focus magnifier properly?
Mick, I'm so glad you made and explained those observations!
About the focuser. I thought I'd focussed it properly, but I don't think I tightened anything down after focusing on that hair. I'm gonna look again!
Thank you all! This is such good info I find here... except I don't have a clue what toe is. But I won't ask now.
again, Mick -
Those comparisons describe so closely the differences I see between my Nikons and Hasselblad! You nailed it. I guess "slightly snappy" describes what I like, so I've got to figure out how to make my smoother Hasselblad look slightly snappy. Anyway, I'm curious - why did they all fight for the Rollei? (Maybe that needs to go on a wish list.)
Thanks again for taking the time to post that very good and thorough comparison.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I agree as well, that cameras and lenses can make a bigger difference than film thickness. Image size is another matter.